Gap Theory - keny

[keny]

Theistic evolution is rejected by the Bible. In all its forms.

Fact is Adam was a ton smarter, healthier and so on, than us. Sin caused genetic decay and loss, no kind of gain from evolution.

Pre-Flood lived for centuries, as will Man during the MK, when God restores him. But we sure dont.

Adam was smart enough to name every animal. None of us could.

In the space of centuries Man invented houses, agriculture, musical instruments and a lot more. Pretty smart for those starting as a handful and having nothing more than animal skins on their backs.

No. Evolution is anti-Biblical by statement and by definition.

I would like to ask, what do you do with this scripture if you feel the evolution theory is anti Biblical? Thanks. Also, we do have many examples of an evolutionary process in existence in the world that is a mirror of the bible language used at times.

I will give the scripture in Genesis 2 fist. It says that the earth and the heavens were created and finished, but it also tells us that there was a need for the things God decided to make or made, to GROW before they were manifested in the creation. The word generations is also given to us in the plural.

I feel I should add here, that I am using the KJV version bible and always have. Also I am a believer in Jesus Christ. Just to get that out of the way before one reads what I am asking about.


Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Adam, per se, was not only male, physically. It is males, faithful and in rule over women in times past, who have taken the word "adam" and caused that word to have a physically male connotation only. Chauvinism, of course, which is quite NATURAL for physical mankind. No accusation meant by me. Just noting a fact about the ways of man in regard to himself in comparison to "women", in a natural minded manner.
We also see in Genesis 1 that man, a many membered living soul that is both male and female and together are called Adam, were given something to do by the Lord God.

I would like us to notice also, that the scripture in Genesis 5 above tells us that Adam has "generationS", plural. This all agrees with a progressive or evolutionary process of manifesting in the creation by doing what God said man was to do. First is natural, and afterward, that which is spiritual, as scripture also informs us.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every

In the creation incidence, we see that the EARTH is to bring forth creatures after "it's" kind. That means, each image creates an immature image of itself. But it also means, that it is in the likeness of "the world or earth". {dust, to use a phrase}

So that process can be undestood as an "image" of what and how God works "in the creation", as well. The created things naturally bring forth their own image, a picture of God bringing forth that which is of His own image too, Spiritually.

God told man to be fruitful, and multiply, and subdue the EARTH, and REplenish or enliven it {to good works and needs}

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
We also know, I am sure, that Paul said, we do not YET see ALL things put under Him, in speaking of man that God visits.

First is natural, and afterward is that which is Spiritual. The fact that man is to do something tells us in those words, that everything is and was NOT finished "in the beginning" of the creation of God. At least, not for the "created things".

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


We see that we have the scripture saying God actually went through a process of "time" in "planting" his work in the physical creation.

Everything that is made or created that has any order of accomplishment MUST be "in time". Time is necessary for anything that is going to go through "change". For change, use the meaning and understanding of the word GROW.

A human fetus "Grows" in the womb to form a body that the life of the parents will live in, in the creation. It is the body that is formed, not the life. But we know today through many revelations about the workings of and in the creation, that the body of a baby "grows". This growth is a PRE ordained growth, but it is still a growth. The baby has to be formed and grow to become manifested to the world outside of it's mother.

Then the baby must grow to an adult by being filled with knowledge, ability, experiences, manners {laws} and so on. This is what evolution involves. And, if the baby is born with all his limbs and body functions normal, then the doctors say, the baby is PERFECT. But of course, the baby is only perfect for a BABY. It does not mean that the baby is perfect as or in the image of the adult it CAN BE at some later time.

A seed can be understood in the same manner. Every seed, we know now, has the predetermined END of it's purpose already pre programmed within it. But the flower that the seed can produce will not come forth unless the seed is planted and ALSO gains nutrient and so on {water, sustenance, etc.} from OUTSIDE of it's own self to help the seed become a stalk of "grass".

IF one is not a farmer or horticulturist, then one would not know what kind of a flower will be the result of the planted seed, until the FLOWER begins to show itself, or manifests. {Romans 8 the creation waits for something, which is the manifestation of the Sons of God}.


The idea that the creation, which is in time, WAITS for something to happen, tells us clearly that what is to happen has not happened FOR IT, yet. For the whole creation is to be freed from the bondage to corruption it is in at this manifestation of the Sons of God.

A seed has the work {DNA? etc.} it will do when planted, already predetermined in it, depending upon all things working to good for it to accomplish that work.

When a seed {before the beginning of the flower} is a seed in one's hand, it can not and does not produce what is WITHIN IT. {The Kingom of God is within man}

When it is planted, it brings forth much that will become chaff once the flower appears and is "picked".

But, the flower itself must produce seeds BEFORE it is picked. I mean, when the flower appears, the flower produces seeds that are able to be and do everything the FIRST seed did. {you shall do greater works than these, because I go to the father, Jesus said}.

This process is able to be found in the creation through a spiritual understanding as well.

Secondly, the scripture in 1 Corinthians 15 tells us clearly that the living soul man, {of Genesis 3}, is NOT the Lord from heaven, but is mortal, corruptible, and dead. The first man, in other words, was immature spiritually, from his beginning.
I am hoping to provoke good thought, perhaps, and am not meaning to be argumentive in attitude. I believe that God causes us all to INCREASE into more maturity in Him and in His truth as we "grow" in the knowledge and grace of the Lord, as scripture says we do.

Every creation must be done "in or within the boundaries of time". It is bound by time, among other things. The bible tells us, as we know, that there is "ignorance" in man. That ignorance is removed by God as God establishes His wisdom where the ignorance "once" ruled. Ignorance here does not mean unable to learn. To me it means, has not learned yet.

Where immatuirty rules or works, God removes immaturity by establishing his spiritual maturity. The fruit of the Spirit {God}, is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, and so on. Anywhere the Spirit truly works, {within anyone], that is the ONLY fruit that will remain when all is completed {fullness of times}.

Thank you and God bless all in the love of Christ.
keny

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
I would like to ask, what do you do with this scripture if you feel the evolution theory is anti Biblical? Thanks. Also, we do have many examples of an evolutionary process in existence in the world that is a mirror of the bible language used at times.

No problem on asking.

And we absolutely have no transitional life forms in the world today, in the fossil record, or any where else.

Quote:
I will give the scripture in Genesis 2 fist. It says that the earth and the heavens were created and finished, but it also tells us that there was a need for the things God decided to make or made, to GROW before they were manifested in the creation. The word generations is also given to us in the plural.
Please post the verses. No where says anything had to grow before it was considered existant. Or did you mean 5:2 here?

You can copy verses from the Online Bible link in the Side Menu to the left.

Quote:
I feel I should add here, that I am using the KJV version bible and always have.
OK. But I will point out where the old English and bad translations get in the way.

Quote:
Also I am a believer in Jesus Christ. Just to get that out of the way before one reads what I am asking about.
There are many Christs, so if the question were asked it would be to show a literal understanding of Christ, not a symbolic or spiritualized one.

Quote:
Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.


Generations means the desdendants of Adam, as beginning in verse 3.

Quote:
Strong's Number: 08435 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=8435&version=kjv)Original WordWord Originhdlwtfrom (03205 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=3205&version=kjv))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08435&version=kjv#Legend) EntryTowl@dahTWOT - 867gPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechto-led-aw' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=8435h) Noun Feminine Definition

descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies
account of men and their descendants
genealogical list of one's descendants
one's contemporaries
course of history (of creation etc)
begetting or account of heaven (metaph)

It does not even hint at being the lineage that led up to him. Either by word meaning or grammar.

As for the rest you said, I will respond when you say something Biblical. Not a spiritualized version of it.

You did the same thing in all the rest you did in 5:2. You threw out some verses and then proceeded to violate word defintion and grammar. And then tossed in an interpretation through the filter of your social and world view.

Very non-literal. So, you need to back your claims with actual Biblical proofs. You haven't.

Not trying to be impolite. But I have demonstrated you have made claims based on bad word meaning and grammar. And have made statements not based on the Bible, but your PC social view.

[keny]

Hello CoreIssue

Thanks for your reply. You had replied about the word Generations…

It does not even hint at being the lineage that led up to him. Either by word meaning or grammar.

Sorry for the confusion you may have encountered in what I said. I was not talking at all about what was before Adam, in my example of using the plural word for generations.

I used that example to show that Adam, which is mankind or a many membered person, or at least, a group of individual physical people, were going to have decendents. There was to be a continuation of the life of the physical body of man. Thus, man was NOT FINISHED in the Genesis account. That is what I am inferring. The bible itself tells us that there is to be a “Generational” continuation.

That is why we discuss things, providing those discussing desire to do so at all.
The common factor among Christians who discuss things is that they mostly assume that what they think the bible says is correct, and address everything from their own point of view. This can cause us to be “unseeing” about what each other is saying, very often.

There are many things in the bible that do not stand up to past Christian doctrine, but of course, I also understand that many do not think so, or do not believe so. Therefore, there is discussion. The point of any discussion should be for the purpose of growing in the things of the Lord.

You also replied…
As for the rest you said, I will respond when you say something Biblical. Not a spiritualized version of it.

Keny says… well, I am sorry you feel that way right now. I understand about the absolute physicalization of the words of scripture that many faithfully and sincerely hold to as being “the truth” of scripture. I am sure that you must have had many discussion with many people who see the physicalization of the word differently, as in Denominationalism. And Yes, I agree with what is said elsewhere on this forum. Denominationalism is not “Christ”, but comes from the “believer’s” point of view or perhaps the teaching they have.

You yourself said, there are "many Christ's". I realize you mean, many different ideas of Christ and also of the scripture. We know that a white supremist, say, can go into the scriptures and find words that will justify his belief, and even use dictionary definitions. We are told we are to hear what "the spirit" says. As you know, we are also told to grow in the knowledge and grace of God.

Jesus Christ in Israel was refuted at what He said in some places, by those who used their physicalized or natural literal understanding of scripture to do so. I did use a parable example of things, yes. But I also used the literal words of the scriptures I mentioned. I used the literal words of the scripture to make a comparison with something we are all familiar with in our lives in the world. I am sorry if you found it “spiritualized” only.

You also replied… You did the same thing in all the rest you did in 5:2. You threw out some verses and then proceeded to violate word defintion and grammar. And then tossed in an interpretation through the filter of your social and world view.Very non-literal. So, you need to back your claims with actual Biblical proofs. You haven't.

Again, I thank you for your thoughts. As you know, I am sure, if one wants to “argue” or “prove” word definitions, it will end up no where. I think they can be used to support someone’s viewpoint or belief, but they are not proof. After all, the definitions themselves are given by men who already have their own belief.
No faithful believer who translates or explains scripture will ever have it say something that they DO NOT believe. That is very natural, and I am not picking on anyone, it is simply that among other things, we are supposed to know what man is, by nature.

The idea that God keeps the scriptures from being brought down and used by man for any thing that man desires, is found to be false today. I am not saying the scriptures are not useful or anything like that. It is simply the truth that we have many, many, versions of the same words in many different churches, and often in the same church. Words can be found to support many different views. What the standard of scripture is supposed to be, for me, is Jesus’ witness and teachings. ONLY the son knows the Father, he said.

He did not tell His disciples to teach the bible, or the scriptures of the day, he told them to teach what He, Jesus, had taught THEM. Jesus is the only true and faithful witness, scripture says, using those words.

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Jesus tells us that Moses did not give us the manna from heaven, but that HE, Jesus, "is" THE manna from heaven. {so, what does manna mean here, if we use that word "literally"?} {rhetorical question, no answer necessary}
The scripture itself tells us that it is man, who know God, that change the image of the incorruptible God into the image of corruptible man, four footed beasts, birds, and creeping things. In other words, into the likeness of the created things. These scriptures tell us that man was corruptible, period. Man, meaning adam, was not perfect as God is perfect, and Adam was not holy as God is holy, in the Genesis account. Anything that is not holy as God is holy, will by it’s very nature, disobey God {holiness}. This is similar to the truth that adults do not blame a human baby for doing baby things, but they also know through worldly experience that the baby will certainly disobey its parents some time in the future.

I would ask you to go back and read what I wrote before, again, and see if you can see it as a parable explanation of worldly things we are familiar with to try to give an example of the conditions of biblical wordings.

Among other things, I said simply that man was told to be fruitful, to multiply, {they are not the same thing}, to SUBDUE the earth, and Replenish it. That is literal.
So, if the earth was in need of being subdued, what condition was it in before it is subdued and Replenished. And, we note, it was mankind that was to subdue.

I also said, scripture tells us that we see not yet all things put under Him. This is in regard to the scripture that say, what is man that thou visitest him. {mankind, or the son of man if you prefer}.
Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

In that it says that God did set “man?” over the work of His hands, we see that in Genesis 1 where it says “let them have dominion, and… be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth, and Replenish it.

This is in regard to replenishing the earth, or world if you like. But I believe what I am saying can be found to be in line with the literal words of scripture in these things.

Again, I thank you for your thoughts and discussion.

God bless you in the love of Christ.
keny

[CoreIssue]

Hello CoreIssue

Thanks for your reply. You had replied about the word Generations…

It does not even hint at being the lineage that led up to him. Either by word meaning or grammar.

Sorry for the confusion you may have encountered in what I said. I was not talking at all about what was before Adam, in my example of using the plural word for generations.
Hi, Keny. No problem.
I used that example to show that Adam, which is mankind or a many membered person, or at least, a group of individual physical people, were going to have decendents. There was to be a continuation of the life of the physical body of man. Thus, man was NOT FINISHED in the Genesis account. That is what I am inferring. The bible itself tells us that there is to be a “Generational” continuation.

Again, this is your theory, totally unsupported by scriptures. Why should I just take your word for it.

Second, generation means a specific part of what comes after, as in Adam's sons. That is one generation. Plural generations means sons, grandsons, great grandsons and so on. It does not mean the lineages of a group of people.

You are totally wrong in word meaning and grammar there.

Adam means Man. God created Man, a man. All his descendents, including us are from Adam/Man. Man does not mean a race. It means a person. Thus all after are Man, meaning of Man/Adam.

There is no evolutionary statement here.
That is why we discuss things, providing those discussing desire to do so at all.
The common factor among Christians who discuss things is that they mostly assume that what they think the bible says is correct, and address everything from their own point of view. This can cause us to be “unseeing” about what each other is saying, very often.

The Bible IS correct. Our doctrine can be wrong about it, but the Bible is not wrong.

You have given zero evidence backing Theistic Evolution. The Hebrew words means to take what is and give it the form stated. Not evolve it into the form stated.
There are many things in the bible that do not stand up to past Christian doctrine, but of course, I also understand that many do not think so, or do not believe so. Therefore, there is discussion. The point of any discussion should be for the purpose of growing in the things of the Lord.

There is not a singular Christian docrtrine on non key issues of the Bible. As with Creation.

I believe in Pre-Adamic and have given a ton of evidence backing it here (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1919&highlight=pre+adamic). I see no comparable evidence offered by you. Just theory.
You also replied…
As for the rest you said, I will respond when you say something Biblical. Not a spiritualized version of it.

Keny says… well, I am sorry you feel that way right now. I understand about the absolute physicalization of the words of scripture that many faithfully and sincerely hold to as being “the truth” of scripture. I am sure that you must have had many discussion with many people who see the physicalization of the word differently, as in Denominationalism. And Yes, I agree with what is said elsewhere on this forum. Denominationalism is not “Christ”, but comes from the “believer’s” point of view or perhaps the teaching they have.

You yourself said, there are "many Christ's". I realize you mean, many different ideas of Christ and also of the scripture.
I actually meant there is Christ and many false Christs. Not false ideas about Christs but what the Bible calls other Christs. Fraud pretending to be Christ but not him. Stolen identity.
We know that a white supremist, say, can go into the scriptures and find words that will justify his belief, and even use dictionary definitions. We are told we are to hear what "the spirit" says. As you know, we are also told to grow in the knowledge and grace of God.

Actually, I have never seen an argument from the Bible for such that is grammatically and word definition accurate.

Abuse of word meaning, literal text, grammar and so on are very common. And growing.

It is a warning bell the second one quotes a scripture and then launches off into pop psychology, PC socialism and such to explain it, instead of defining the words and analysing the passages literally.

You note on the generations issue I gave the meaning and then referred to the grammatical context. I did not go off onto theories about Adam and Eve being a group because Adam and Eve are singular persons in the Bible.

To support your theory, all of every word of the creation account in the first few chapters of Genensis cease to be literal. Including the temptation and Fall.

I have yet to see a group that endorses Theistic evolution that does not also tamper with who Christ is and the meaning of salvation.
Jesus Christ in Israel was refuted at what He said in some places, by those who used their physicalized or natural literal understanding of scripture to do so.
No. He wasn't. He was challenged by those who took a legalistic view, not a literal view. There is a massive distinction.

He refuted their challenges by references the OT in full, not their cherry picked version.
I did use a parable example of things, yes. But I also used the literal words of the scriptures I mentioned. I used the literal words of the scripture to make a comparison with something we are all familiar with in our lives in the world. I am sorry if you found it “spiritualized” only.

A parable is a literal statement and tool in linquistics. When symbolic language has a literal meaning it is literal, not spiritualized. That is a rule of grammar.
You also replied… You did the same thing in all the rest you did in 5:2. You threw out some verses and then proceeded to violate word defintion and grammar. And then tossed in an interpretation through the filter of your social and world view.Very non-literal. So, you need to back your claims with actual Biblical proofs. You haven't.

Again, I thank you for your thoughts. As you know, I am sure, if one wants to “argue” or “prove” word definitions, it will end up no where.
What argument? I posted the word meaning in Hebrew. You want to argue a spiritualized version of what it actually meant.
I think they can be used to support someone’s viewpoint or belief, but they are not proof. After all, the definitions themselves are given by men who already have their own belief.

So much for the Bible being the inspired and inerrant word of God. Now you have no foundation at all to base your statements on.
No faithful believer who translates or explains scripture will ever have it say something that they DO NOT believe. That is very natural, and I am not picking on anyone, it is simply that among other things, we are supposed to know what man is, by nature.

That is false. I read the Bible for what it says, whether I like it or full 'get it' either way. You are looking for what you want to find, thus the creation account of Genesis becomes totally non-literal, and you become the intepreter via your social and other views of reality.

That is why I didn't go through the whole presentation and respond to each point. Because each point would have been a challenge for you to prove yourself Biblically.

As here, absolutely no Biblical effort at all to justify what you are saying. Just a personal presentation of your feelings and wants for what the Bible means or should mean.

You cannot present evidence and proofs because you have none to present. As with mis-defining generations.
The idea that God keeps the scriptures from being brought down and used by man for any thing that man desires, is found to be false today.
That does not make the Bible non-literal, not inerrant and not God inspired. That makes those who do such things wrong. As you are wrong here because you refuse to read it literally.

When you refuse to read it literally the Bible becomes void of meaning, since it can mean anything to anybody.

The issue is getting the words and passages defined and read literally by proper grammar and defintion. You are not even making an effort to do that.
I am not saying the scriptures are not useful or anything like that. It is simply the truth that we have many, many, versions of the same words in many different churches, and often in the same church. Words can be found to support many different views. What the standard of scripture is supposed to be, for me, is Jesus’ witness and teachings. ONLY the son knows the Father, he said.

Which is a spin to give you permission to dump the literal words because you don't like them.
He did not tell His disciples to teach the bible, or the scriptures of the day, he told them to teach what He, Jesus, had taught THEM. Jesus is the only true and faithful witness, scripture says, using those words.

Of, really? Christ referenced every book of the OT as evidence for his statments and himself. He said he did not come to negate the law, but to fulfill it.

You really are not seeing what Christ said in full.
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Which does absolutely nothing to throw out the whole of the Bible or change its literal words to spiritualized ones.

And spirit means the reason, motivation, source and purpose. It does not mean spiritualized or general sense of prophecy.
Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Jesus tells us that Moses did not give us the manna from heaven, but that HE, Jesus, "is" THE manna from heaven. {so, what does manna mean here, if we use that word "literally"?} {rhetorical question, no answer necessary}
Hello, figurative language hold literal meaning is literal.

Every such figurative usage also is literally defined in the Bible somewhere. A point you are missing.

The Parables also followed with literal meanings. Manna had the literal meaning of nourishment from God given in the OT.

So, no, this does not give you permission to slap figurative meanings on everything and then create your own interpretation of meaning according to what you want to find.
The scripture itself tells us that it is man, who know God, that change the image of the incorruptible God into the image of corruptible man, four footed beasts, birds, and creeping things. In other words, into the likeness of the created things.
Doesn't say that. It says people created their own gods in their own images.

Which is what you are doing here by abandoning a literal Bible.

These are zero proofs for what you said about Genesis. Just attempts to say your interpretation is right because you want to bring in thinking from other sources as proof.
These scriptures tell us that man was corruptible, period. Man, meaning adam, was not perfect as God is perfect, and Adam was not holy as God is holy, in the Genesis account. Anything that is not holy as God is holy, will by it’s very nature, disobey God {holiness}. This is similar to the truth that adults do not blame a human baby for doing baby things, but they also know through worldly experience that the baby will certainly disobey its parents some time in the future.

Actually, Adam was created perfect and chose to sin.

In your thinking Satan and the angels that rebelled were also created imperfect.

Thus, you accuse God of making flawed beings.

He created perfect beings who had freewill. Some chose to rebel.
I would ask you to go back and read what I wrote before, again, and see if you can see it as a parable explanation of worldly things we are familiar with to try to give an example of the conditions of biblical wordings.
No. I cannot.

Parables also gave the literal meanings following. Genesis was given in a literal manner and is to be read literally.

There was no literal meaning following. And you don't have permission to put yours own it. Nor do you have a gram of evidence to offer, from the Bible, to back it. You just offer your opinion upon something you read you don't like as is.
Among other things, I said simply that man was told to be fruitful, to multiply, {they are not the same thing}, to SUBDUE the earth, and Replenish it. That is literal.
So, if the earth was in need of being subdued, what condition was it in before it is subdued and Replenished. And, we note, it was mankind that was to subdue.

Good ole KJV. It means to rule, control and populate the earth.

As for the replenish issue, Pre-Adamic Creation covers it.
I also said, scripture tells us that we see not yet all things put under Him. This is in regard to the scripture that say, what is man that thou visitest him. {mankind, or the son of man if you prefer}.
Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

Which has nothing to do with what Genesis.
In that it says that God did set “man?” over the work of His hands, we see that in Genesis 1 where it says “let them have dominion, and… be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth, and Replenish it.

This is in regard to replenishing the earth, or world if you like. But I believe what I am saying can be found to be in line with the literal words of scripture in these things.

Where?

Offering spiritualized interpretations as literal does not fly.

Again, I thank you for your thoughts and discussion.

God bless you in the love of Christ.
keny
Sure.

But note again you gave zero verses to back your theories. You gave verses and then spun the meanings.

[keny]

Hello Corissue.

Thanks for the reply. You had said. Again, this is your theory, totally unsupported by scriptures. Why should I just take your word for it.

This was in regard to my saying that man was not finished when he was the living soul man, or from the beginning. The scripture tells us this. I did not give the scriptures themselves but mentioned where they were in the bible. I assumed that the examples I spoke about would be known by you. I am sure they are as I realize you are a bible studious person. But I will give scripture if you like.

First, Romans 1 tells us that man IS corruptible, because man {yes MAN}, is said to have changed the image of the incorruptible God into the likeness of "corruptible man" etc. In other words, man WAS able to be corruptible. God is not. We are told how this happens, by being given over to man's vain imaginations and the lusts of man's OWN HEART. The result is to worship the creature {man's ways included} MORE than the creator. It does not say they did not "worship" or believe in God or a god, but they did not really follow the truth of God because of the vanity of their own heart's lusts. Their OWN heart's lusts.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Further, 1 Corinthians 15 tells us the first man {which is both male and female as you have stated in other places}, is made a living soul. This man IS NOT the Lord from heaven. The second MAN is the Lord from heaven.

1Co 15:40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

The resurrection, meaning Jesus Christ, is SOWN in corruption. The natural body of man.

1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It {Jesus Christ's Body} is sown in corruption; it {Jesus Christ's body} is raised in incorruption:

This itself shows us that there is a sowing BEFORE there is a reaping, and we are told that the natural body which is where the resurrection is sown, is bare grain. In other words, not a finished product.

1Co 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 1Co 15:36Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 1Co 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

The resurrection is sown a NATURAL Body, but is raised a Spiritual body. The first man of course, the living soul man, is NATURAL and earthy, corruptible, and in death. A spiritual baby.

1Co 15:44 It {the resurrection} is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

These scriptures tell us the living soul man, the first man {mankind} is NATURAL. There is something further for that man, {mankind}, which will be SPIRITUAL.

We also know that when this begins to happen, it will not be as some teach. The scripture tells us that the things that OFFEND will be removed from God's KINGDOM. It does not say that God's kingdom will be removed. The things that offend are to be taken OUT OF God's Kingdom. In the scriptures in Isaiah, it tells us plainly that this is done BY THE SPIRIT. OF course, that spirit must be within, not outside in someone else.

1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

In that it says we "SHALL", in a future tense, bear the image of the heavenly, we can and should understand that what we are looking for was not completed or "already done", in the day of the apostles and even up to this day. In the creation, the changes MUST take place within time.

Isa 10:27 And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing.

Isa 32:14 Because the palaces shall be forsaken; the multitude of the city shall be left; the forts and towers shall be for dens for ever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks;
Isa 32:15 Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest.

The Lord judges IN HIS KINGDOM at His appearing in HIS BODY. It is the thing that defile the "body" or temple of the Lord, from within it, that are the "sinners" in Zion.

Isa 33:10 Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.
Isa 33:11 Ye shall conceive chaff, ye shall bring forth stubble: your breath, as fire, shall devour you.
Isa 33:12 And the people shall be as the burnings of lime: as thorns cut up shall they be burned in the fire. Isa 33:13 Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done; and, ye that are near, acknowledge my might.
Isa 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?

We are built together, as a dwelling place for God, through the SPIRIT. The yoke of "the Assyrian" is destroyed by the Anointing.

Thank you again, in Christ,
keny

[CoreIssue]

Keny, I repeat. You have given zero verses stating theistic evolution.

Your taking other issues and trying to spin meanings is not proof.

[keny]

Hello CoreIssue. Continuing on with the discussion as page two of reply to your reply.
You replied in regard to what I had said…
You are totally wrong in word meaning and grammar there.
I hope you understand, this type of reply shuts YOUR door to hearing anything that may be able to be heard. If I do that, I too am shutting MY door. I have found that if one really wants to discuss something for edification purposes, they have to listen at least somewhat, to what the other person is saying, irregardless of whether they agree or not. After all, how can I discuss something with someone when I do not even know properly what they believe or do not understand the viewpoint they are viewing things from.


You said.
Adam means Man. God created Man, a man. All his descendents, including us are from Adam/Man. Man does not mean a race. It means a person. Thus all after are Man, meaning of Man/Adam.


This is the common viewpoint for most “bible readers”, I agree. But it does not stand up to the truth of the scripture. It is the physical male part of mankind that thinks that the first man is “only” MALE in physical makeup. Scripture says otherwise.
Please note the word them in the following example.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The above scripture clearly says that God created him, and then calls the him, THEM, meaning plural. You understand that without the physical woman, there is no more “mankind” as an physical organism in the world. Male “prejudice” to and for self is what thinks the man mentioned in scripture was a MALE only. Prejudice of this kind has made a mountain for those who have it, and they can not see the light because of this “mountain” before the eyes of their understanding.

The following scripture tells us clearly that Adam was named by God and that Adam was both male and female, called THEM and Him.

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

You then replied, in reference to Adam and the continuation of the species, in this manner.

There is no evolutionary statement here.

Do you deny that man has progressed in being filled with knowledge and ability about earthy things, about his environment and so on, at least? That is growth, and anything that GROWS is said to be “evolving” or to evolve. You have shut this meaning of the word evolution out of your present understanding so it fits “your” sincere belief about what you believe. This is common to all of us.
You also said. The Bible IS correct. Our doctrine can be wrong about it, but the Bible is not wrong.


It is odd, but you said before in a post to me, that the “KJV” had it’s problems. I agree, but I will repeat. Any faithful person who is a believer in Christ will NEVER interpret scripture to have it say something they do not believe. Of course, if scripture has something in it they are not familiar with or do not think they have an understanding about, then they will copy it word for word, more or less. But no sincere believer will “interpret/translate” scripture to say something they personally do not believe. Think about it for a moment please. This is quite natural for man. You know, the part of man that thinks he is always correct. The man that says, I can read.
The fact that the doctrines can be wrong is actually what we are kind of addressing, are we not?

I am sure, Coreissue, you have changed your understanding of some things from what or the way you used to believe them before. So, if you had spoken to me before, then some of what you say now would not be what you said then. Is that not true? We should, for the Lord’s sake, approach scripture discussion from this point of understanding, anyway.
You wrote…
You have given zero evidence backing Theistic Evolution. The Hebrew words means to take what is and give it the form stated. Not evolve it into the form stated.
I addressed this above, in a short form. The word evolve includes what we know the word GROW means. I gave scripture about God making everything BEFORE it grew in the world, did I not. In Genesis 2. Anything that grows, can be said to be changing and thus is “evolving”.
Also, even if something that is made took only 1 second, that second is the whole lifetime of the creation that is being formed. For the creature, it is a lifetime.
As to mankind, there is the parable ability to see mankind as ONE person, which is how God sees man. Using what we know about our body today, each person who has ever lived and died, and those who are presently alive, can be understood as occupying the position of one cell on the physical body of Adam, or all of mankind through History.
In the natural, by body is made up of many cells, and these cells are all alive by ONE Life in me. During the time they live, reproduce, fall of and die by leaving the living body, I myself as a person with mind and nature, remain alive and grow in the knowledge and ability that will serve me as a human adult. More cells replace the one’s that live for a time and then die.

The cells die by leaving the main body, falling to the ground, and becoming dust again.
As you know, the scripture tells “adam”, the part that was disobedient, that he shall return to the dust because it is from the DUST that he {disobedience} comes from. The life of God in Man was not what came from the dust, is it?
All people who ever lived and those alive today, all are living by the one life that came out from the only life-giver there is, which is eternal life. All the cells on my body live and move and have their personal being in me, through the life in me. Is that not so?
That is what scripture says about mankind. We all live and move and have our being in Him. As we also know, in Acts 17 it says that we are ALL the offspring of God, already, before “admittance” to it comes to our awareness. And, we are all of one blood made bretheren.
Act 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
This is becoming quite long, so I will stop here, and reply to the rest later on.
Thank you again, in Christ,
keny

[CoreIssue]

Hello CoreIssue. Continuing on with the discussion as page two of reply to your reply.
You replied in regard to what I had said…
You are totally wrong in word meaning and grammar there.
I hope you understand, this type of reply shuts YOUR door to hearing anything that may be able to be heard. If I do that, I too am shutting MY door. I have found that if one really wants to discuss something for edification purposes, they have to listen at least somewhat, to what the other person is saying, irregardless of whether they agree or not. After all, how can I discuss something with someone when I do not even know properly what they believe or do not understand the viewpoint they are viewing things from.
Hi Keny,

It does not take a full understanding of my position to understand that when you do not use correct word defintions and rules of grammar your approach is wrong.

As with Adam being a group. You have given absolutely zero Biblical backing for that statement.

Genesis literal says and shows one man created directly from the dust. Not a group.

The proof demand is upon you to show where they Bible says otherwise. Not me. And there is not such statement or evidence in the Bible.

When you step out and attempt to make it all figurative, again, the demand for proof falls upon you, not me, to present why it is figurative.

I repeat, in all places where figurative language is used it is used in a literal manner. Either the language always has a literal meaning accept in the language of the times, was we have figurative epressions, today, that all know the literal meaning of.

There is nothing here to consider without reason to consider it. You don't like what it says literally is not justification for attempting to explain it figurative. Even more so when Adam, in example, is used as one literal person throughout the Bible.

WHY is it not literal? You have yet to present a case for it being anything but.
You said.
Adam means Man. God created Man, a man. All his descendents, including us are from Adam/Man. Man does not mean a race. It means a person. Thus all after are Man, meaning of Man/Adam.


This is the common viewpoint for most “bible readers”, I agree.
That is false. It means that in the ancient Hebrew. Has never meant anything other than that.
But it does not stand up to the truth of the scripture.
It absolutely does. You have given nothing to show otherwise.
It is the physical male part of mankind that thinks that the first man is “only” MALE in physical makeup.
False. Your politically correct social thinking is not evidence to the contrary. Nothing in the Bible backs you.
Scripture says otherwise.
Please note the word them in the following example.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Adam and Eve. Period.
The above scripture clearly says that God created him, and then calls the him, THEM, meaning plural.
Adam and Eve. Period. Eve came from Adam/Man. There is no mention of other males here. Period.
You understand that without the physical woman, there is no more “mankind” as an physical organism in the world.
And you understand that if they had not sinned there would have been no other humans than those two?

This is no evidence for theistic evolution.
Male “prejudice” to and for self is what thinks the man mentioned in scripture was a MALE only. Prejudice of this kind has made a mountain for those who have it, and they can not see the light because of this “mountain” before the eyes of their understanding.

Man means Adam, from which mankind came. Mankind means from Adam. Get over it and get off the politically correct social agenda. It is a modern day thought process that is not evidence of squat on this issue.

This is not evidence of theistic evolution. Just that you are trying to filter and read the Bible through your social agenda. And thus why you will not read the Bible literally.
The following scripture tells us clearly that Adam was named by God and that Adam was both male and female, called THEM and Him.
False. Never said.
Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Bad translation. The KJV is loaded with bad transations.
NIV
2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%205:2&version=31#fen-NIV-108a)] "

NASB
2He created them (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%205:2;&version=49;#cen-NASB-108A))male and female, and He (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%205:2;&version=49;#cen-NASB-108B))blessed them and named them [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%205:2;&version=49;#fen-NASB-108a)]Man in the day when they were created.
ESV
2Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%205:2;&version=47;#fen-ESV-108a)] when they were created.
And I could go on posting the correct translation. I will just let it go here by posting the Hebrew meaning of the word used.
Strong's Number: 0120 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=120&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin~dafrom (0119 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=119&version=kjv))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0120&version=kjv#Legend) Entry'adamTWOT - 25aPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechaw-dawm' http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0120h) Noun Masculine Definition
man, mankind
man, human being
man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
Adam, first man
city in Jordan valley
Your effort here is not as clear cut as you think. Plus, when seeing how the term is used in the rest of the Bible, it fails totally.
You then replied, in reference to Adam and the continuation of the species, in this manner.

There is no evolutionary statement here.

Do you deny that man has progressed in being filled with knowledge and ability about earthy things, about his environment and so on, at least? That is growth, and anything that GROWS is said to be “evolving” or to evolve. You have shut this meaning of the word evolution out of your present understanding so it fits “your” sincere belief about what you believe. This is common to all of us.

I suggest you learn the different in meaning between organic evolution and scientific and other evolution.

Fact is, biologically, organisms are not getting better, but worse.
You also said.The Bible IS correct. Our doctrine can be wrong about it, but the Bible is not wrong.

It is odd, but you said before in a post to me, that the “KJV” had it’s problems. I agree, but I will repeat. Any faithful person who is a believer in Christ will NEVER interpret scripture to have it say something they do not believe.
You are wrong. Period.

Many of us have changed our beliefs because a literal reading of the Bible has shown we are worng.

So much for that argument.
Of course, if scripture has something in it they are not familiar with or do not think they have an understanding about, then they will copy it word for word, more or less. But no sincere believer will “interpret/translate” scripture to say something they personally do not believe. Think about it for a moment please. This is quite natural for man. You know, the part of man that thinks he is always correct. The man that says, I can read.
The fact that the doctrines can be wrong is actually what we are kind of addressing, are we not?

Thus why we must have a standard of testing.

Now, is that testing going to be using proper word meaning and rules of linquistics and grammar or trying to find the spiritualized meaning to places that are stated in literal terms.

Hmmmm. I can show proper word meaning and grammar. You offer conjecture. Who is forcing is reading to find what they want and who is reading to find what it says?

YOU are finding what you want. Proven by still arguing the meaning of Adam, man and generations after having the meaning posted to you.

You have YET to offer anythng but your conjecture, based on your social thinking, for anything in the Bible.
I am sure, Coreissue, you have changed your understanding of some things from what or the way you used to believe them before. So, if you had spoken to me before, then some of what you say now would not be what you said then. Is that not true? We should, for the Lord’s sake, approach scripture discussion from this point of understanding, anyway.

One should always be open to new learning. But learning based on fact and evidence.

Where is yours?

I post word meaning and you deny them. I show a singular Adam and Eve stated and you demand Adams and Eves.
You wrote…
You have given zero evidence backing Theistic Evolution. The Hebrew words means to take what is and give it the form stated. Not evolve it into the form stated.
I addressed this above, in a short form. The word evolve includes what we know the word GROW means.
The issue is creation, not social, evolution. There is NO evolution in the Bible. You have shown nothing on that topic.
I gave scripture about God making everything BEFORE it grew in the world, did I not.
That is not evolution. It is life.

Created it all directly form the dust, as is. Kind reproducing kind. Not this kind becoming that kind.
In Genesis 2. Anything that grows, can be said to be changing and thus is “evolving”.

False definition of organic evolution.
Also, even if something that is made took only 1 second, that second is the whole lifetime of the creation that is being formed. For the creature, it is a lifetime.

Absurd argument when you are trying to prove theistic evolution.
As to mankind, there is the parable ability to see mankind as ONE person, which is how God sees man.
First, Genesis is not a parable.

Second, God sees humans as individuals, nations and as a whole. Not just as a race, which gets into salvation and evolution issues.
As for your statement on Man being a single organism, get back to me when you can show that in the Bible. And how you deal with a one on one personal relationship and judgement between each person and God.
This is becoming quite long, so I will stop here, and reply to the rest later on.
Thank you again, in Christ,
keny
Later, keny.

But to be honest, I am seeing nothing Biblical or Christian in what you are saying.

I have run into similar thinking in the past. And it has always been from other religions or cults, never Christian.

Being Christian revolves around the issue of Christ and Salvation. I suspect you do not believe anyone is going to Hell.
http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

[keny]

Hello Core.

Thanks for the reply. I just wrote a rather long reply to your last message, but I lost it somehow, so will just share this. I had said I was using the literal words, and if you had a problem with that let me know. Then I read this.

You said. Bad translation. The KJV is loaded with bad transations.

This tells me a lot. thank you. But... you can not use this as YOUR proof. Sorry.

In other words, you are a bible letter man, and also limited to what You say is the proper bible. We will not get anywhere much this way.

May I ask, what bible do you use? Or do you use just one version or not. Do you keep looking until you find what suits you as to what you believe should be the proper wording. Ask God, never mind the bible dictionaries in regard to what you want to understand.

Do you think God does not or will not reply? If it is His word, ask HIM.

2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
I would say there is a gap, and it is not a theory. The gap is the difference and space that needs to be traveled for Christianity to leave behind the natural minded understanding of scripture and of God, and move on to the truth of Jesus' witness and life.

Thanks again, and love in Christ,
keny

[CoreIssue]

Hello Core.

Thanks for the reply. I just wrote a rather long reply to your last message, but I lost it somehow, so will just share this. I had said I was using the literal words, and if you had a problem with that let me know. Then I read this.

You said. Bad translation. The KJV is loaded with bad transations.

This tells me a lot. thank you. But... you can not use this as YOUR proof. Sorry.
Of course I can. A misdefined word corrected is proof.

Adam is included in geneologies in the NT as well. A geneology is father to father. You don't go back in time, man to man, and the suddenly say group.
In other words, you are a bible letter man, and also limited to what You say is the proper bible. We will not get anywhere much this way.

No. You won't get far this way because I demand proof. And your contemplations are not proof. Proof comes with verifiable facts.
May I ask, what bible do you use? Or do you use just one version or not. Do you keep looking until you find what suits you as to what you believe should be the proper wording. Ask God, never mind the bible dictionaries in regard to what you want to understand.

I use the NIV for general reading. Cross reference with the NASB and Greek and Hebrew Interlinears for deeper study.
Do you think God does not or will not reply? If it is His word, ask HIM.

He answers as he will. But where he gives us the answers in the Bible he expects us to read and learn.
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Revealing of the Anti-Christ in the First Seal of the Trib at the same time as the Pre-Trib Rapture. Ending with the Second Coming where all who take the Mark of the Beast are killed. Adding to the 2/3 of the population that die during the Trib.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
I would say there is a gap, and it is not a theory. The gap is the difference and space that needs to be traveled for Christianity to leave behind the natural minded understanding of scripture and of God, and move on to the truth of Jesus' witness and life.

Totally off topic here.

And is addressing saints, here, not the whole world.

Thanks again, and love in Christ,
keny


Later.

[keny]

Of course I can. A misdefined word corrected is proof.

Adam is included in geneologies in the NT as well. A geneology is father to father. You don't go back in time, man to man, and the suddenly say group.

No. You won't get far this way because I demand proof. And your contemplations are not proof. Proof comes with verifiable facts.

I use the NIV for general reading. Cross reference with the NASB and Greek and Hebrew Interlinears for deeper study.

Hello Core. I will put my replies in Red so they are easy to identify. I wonder, do you not understand that just saying "your" words are correct and mine, or anyone else's, is not able to accomplish anything for anyone. I can not understand how you do not realize what I am actually saying in regard to this, if you are moderator here. I mean, you must have run across many people who think differently than you do about some or many things. I am not saying you should believe against what you believe, I am saying you do not seem to understand a method whereby you can actually disagree with someone with some form of conversational etiquette. I say again, it is all right for me, but I know by experience, and reading OTHER peoples posts on some of these forums, that that method does not cut any ice with most natural minded responses and offerings.

Just saying to someone that the scripture they use is incorrect according to YOUR scritpure book, never will do what you intend. You must just get into a lot of he says she says type of discussion, where the door has been closed for most of the discussion but no one seems to notice that fact.

I am saying that man has appeared in a pre ordained method of evolving in form and shape and wisdom and ability over many many eons. Just like the creation itself does everywhere. God "follows" the rules HE set out for the creation after all. We are simply talking here about God beginning to FORM A BODY for His son to inhabit in Eternity or spiritual existence.

This in fact, is the evident process that every human body is formed by in the womb of their mother, as I said in another post, so will not belabour the point in this one.

Have you ever looked at the scripture about the new heaven and new earth in Isaiah 65. There is still a sinner mentioned, a young man, an infant, and the SERPENT is still there.

You know when the garden of eden situation was mentioned in scripture, when God said that he looked on all that he had made, and it was very good, the serpent was included.

There is a place for this "serpent". Man's imaginations from long ago have continued to leak into man's beliefs in Christianity, long ago and even up to today. To believe that somehow or other, God in heaven had a rebellion in HIS kingdom where HE IS LORD of ALL, and God could not deal with that rebellion in any other way but to throw the rebellious one's down to earth to afflict and harm and posses His offspring, is a heinous explanation that defames God. Think about it, please.

The nature of the law of sin is the source of all these suppositions. The natural mind and nature {carnal} is not subject to the law of God and indeed CAN NOT BE subject, becuase it is NOT MADE AFTER GOD's MIND OR IMAGE.

As to "Adam" being a group. Is not mankind many members, and is not the body of Chirst many members. And, according to your own words in another post, is not God speaking in the plural when it is said, let US make man in OUR image. I know you have perhaps a different explantion of who is who, but it is PLURAL. No use me using my refrences, is it? Unless of course, they agree with yours. You see what I mean about getting into discussions about what bible is right and what one is not, and where some are right part of the time and others are right all the time, etc. Useless for proof to the ONE being spoken TO.

Case in point. When I use the KJV version to give scripture, you discount it. Why can not those you share with do the same to your version. Of course, they do. I am not interested in discussing the merits of bible versions. I also go to the hebrew and the greek, Core, but as I said ,there are many different words given for the explanation in the dictionaries, usually. Pick one that suits the idea of the reader is the name of that game.

He answers as he will. But where he gives us the answers in the Bible he expects us to read and learn.

Core. Have you ever been reading the bible and something begins to unfold for you that you never saw or knew before? The explanation OVERIDES the words as we think them to be, unless we refuse that explanation. As said, the Jewish teachers and leaders of the day were very diligent and knowledgeable about their scriptures, and they used their own understanding of those scriptures to refuse Christ.

He said, in the scriptures you THINK you have eteranal life, and they are they that testify of me.
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Yes, they would NOT COME TO HIM, that they may HAVE life.

You know, when Jesus was asked by the rich young ruler what he should do, Jesus told him, *IF* he would enter into life, keep the commandments. He said this while he was present. WHen asked about what one's, Jesus mentioned ONLY the ten commandments, love God, love your neighbour as yourself. Period.

When the young man asked what more he would do, Jesus told him, *IF* he would be PERFECT {mature}, he would sell all he had, give to the poor, and come and follow Jesus.

WHat does the word follow mean. It is not a one time verbal utterance, is it?




[color=black]Later.


Thank you and God bless,
keny

[keny]

Hello Core.

You had said in the "other" thread... keny, organic evolution means one species changing to the point the become another species.

It does not mean just change of any kind.

Now, with that said, please allow this thread to return to it subject, being what demons are. Hijacking a thread isn't nice.

Keny writes. Well it was certainly not an "intended" high jacking. Sorry but I thought we were having an overall discussion. I will attempt to keep things in place for ease of reading.

There are many common genes between many species, as you know. Also, we have right in front of our face the fact that some diseases that were once able to be controlled by some forms of antibiotics and so on, are no longer susceptible to them. Or. they are becoming "immune" to the older antibiotics, for many reasons.

What we have is TB bacillus, for instance, that is now unable to be destroyed or defeated by the antidotes once used upon them. They are able to survive through these things because all the former bacillus that were susceptible and weak to the old serums and so on, died off. But those who were more resistant survived because of man's lack of killing them all, and they are now the majority. They have evolved, in a manner that is a direct witness of "survival of the fittest" as a fact of life in the creation. That is "evolution" of the SPECIES.

Birds are commonly considered to have been evolved from dinosaurs, and so on.

We have Neanderthal man, and other such examples also. Yes, whether one "wants" to beleive it or not is up to each person. But I will say, it is said in Revelation 17 that the kingdoms of man {beasts} that come up out of the sea of humanity, are who and what begin to eventually have the whore removed from over their head, and the begin to hate the whore and burn HER flesh with fire. The truth has nothing to fear from this "system", especially if those who are in the truth of it, obey that truth as to lifestyle and how to treat all people as Jesus said.

It even says, the "BEAST" is doing the will of God in doing so. The "whore" is all kinds of incorrect and false ideas and doctrines about God, and about mythology and so on. The knowledge God is giving to mankind that is coming through the body of the beast kingdoms is being used by the maturing sons we are to be, to MINISTER TRUTHS about the creation, to them. Yes, it is up to each person to decide.

But, I will say, ALL things work to good for them that love God and are called according to His purpose. Just as, EVERY creature of God is good and nothing to be refused {if} for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. The word of God is spiritual in intent and understanding. Yes, there is a manifestation outwardly of inner spiritual situations and conditions and desires in the living creatures, but the spiritual genesis is first.

God bless, keny

[CoreIssue]

MHz, the Bible literally defines each day of creation as being enclosed within a morning and an evening. That is a normal day, not 1,000 years or any multiple of it.

The 6 days were 6 literal days.

[CoreIssue]

keny. please stop hijacking threads and take evolution to the proper threads and so on.

You are so far away from the topic here it is rediculous.

[keny]

Hello Core.

The signify a time of light progressing toward darkness. A morning and an evening. The scripture tells us that there will be no more night for those who are in the light of God.
So, did Jesus never see the nightime, literally.?

The scripture tells us that if we obey Christ and follow those precepts and add to our faith certain things, we will have an opening {door} ministered to us BY those things where we will be able to see {understand} far off {future} events and happenings.

It is those things of christ, abounding in us, that will be the reason these promises become true.

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
2Pe 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
2Pe 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
2Pe 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
2Pe 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

There is a "present truth" in the day of the apostles that is now surpassed. You know the scripture talks about new wine, and Peter mentions a salvation that is READY to be revealed in the last days. I am trying to share about that. It is here, and it is not prejudicial and is not exclusive, but it does depend upon faith. Faith works by love.

2Pe 1:12 Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.

1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Thank you again, and God bless.
keny

[CoreIssue]

Keny, you are rambling.

The issue was the 6 days of creation.

Honestly you are using these topics as a chance to preach. Another reason you have been moved. Besides the obvious one of getting the other threads back on track.

Your gnostic claims are not going to persuade anyone but you.

[MHz]

MHz, the Bible literally defines each day of creation as being enclosed within a morning and an evening. That is a normal day, not 1,000 years or any multiple of it.

The 6 days were 6 literal days.
So then the day of the Lord is one day, literally. I would have to agree with you on this one.
Zep:2:2:
Before the decree bring forth,
before the day pass as the chaff,
before the fierce anger of the LORD come upon you,
before the day of the LORD's anger come upon you.

Well several days had passed even before our defination of what a day and year was given. Consider this verse where God now defines these days as generations;
Ge:2:4:
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,
in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

I would be more than willing to read any verses that you care to supply that say a generation and a day occupy the same amount of time. You know that a day with the Lord can be longer than our current understanding of one day.

[CoreIssue]

Hi MHz,

Now you are going off topic. :crazy:

No. The days of Genesis are a totally different subject than the DOTL. Attempting to equate one to the other is really bad logic.

[MHz]

Hi MHz,

Now you are going off topic. :crazy:

No. The days of Genesis are a totally different subject than the DOTL. Attempting to equate one to the other is really bad logic.

What is wrong with your eyes???
The second chapter of the first book the Holy Bible equates those days of creation akin to generations. How long is a generation, is it a finite set of years or a period of time that can it vary in the amount of time that each generation. The generations of Noah would be a good example, the times given from the birth of one until that one had a child (next generation) isn't the same number of years in any of those generations. Generation was from when one was born one (born) became a father. That is a generation.
Another example that generation does not have to have a set number of years are the generations before Christ, there were three sets of 14 generations. No doubt you have a chart that gives the times going back through those generations. Are they equal in the number of years they represent?
The reference verse for this is here;
M't:1:17:
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations;
and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations;
and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

God refers to the days of creation as generations, that would seem to make them cover a period of time that does not have to conform to what was set in place on the 4th day.

This article would support what I'm saying,
http://msxml.webcrawler.com/info.wbcrwl/clickit/search?r_aid=C7799093AFF342C8A48F0C5D389A0BE0&r_eop=1&r_sacop=2&r_spf=0&r_cop=main-title&r_snpp=2&r_spp=0&qqn=PXkDat.!&r_coid=239137&rawto=http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yom_with_number.pdf

The Hebrew Word “Yom” Used with a Number in Genesis 1
What does “yom” mean in Genesis 1 ?
by Rodney Whitefield, Ph.D.
© Rodney Whitefield 2006 This document may be freely distributed provided it is complete and unchanged.
1
Recently, a reader of my book Reading Genesis One asked about the use of a number with the Hebrew

Specifically, I was asked to comment on the statement, “Day” with numerical adjectives in
word “yom.”
Hebrew always refers to a 24 hour period.”, which appears in John MacArthur’s Study Bible in reference
to Genesis 1:5.
The quoted statement is one which is commonly offered to justify eliminating the long “extended period of
time” meaning of the Hebrew word “yom” in Genesis 1:3-31. Eliminating the “extended period” or “age”
meaning would then give support for a 24 hour interpretation for the duration of the creative times. In the
first chapter of Genesis, the singular Hebrew word
“yom” appears with a number at the conclusion of
each of the creative times. Subsequently, in this article, “yom” refers to this singular Hebrew word form.
In order to illustrate the differing opinions which have been offered as interpretation, I will very briefly
quote two well-known Bible scholars about the numbering of the word “yom.” Both scholars hold “extended
the meaning of “yom” as describing the duration of the creative times.
period” or “age” views of
Subsequently, I will explain why the opinion of these two scholars has substantial support in the Hebrew,
in contradiction to the claim in the MacArthur Study Bible. First the quotes:
Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pages 60-61, Baker 1982:
“ There were six major stages in this work of formation, and these stages are represented by successive days
of a week. In this connection it is important to observe that none of the six creative days bears a definite
article in the Hebrew text; the translations “the first day,” “ the second day,” etc., are in error. The Hebrew
says, “And the evening took place, and the morning took place, day one” (1:5). Hebrew expresses “the first
day” by hayyom harison, but this text says simply yom ehad (day one). Again, in v.8 we read not hayyom
hasseni (“the second day”) but yom seni (“a second day”). In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite
article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be
omitted. The same is true with the rest of the six days; they all lack the definite article. Thus they are well
adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.”
Gleason Archer was Associate Editor of the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. In the quote above,
the first two italicized letters ha of words like harison indicate the Hebrew prefix
“heh” meaning “the.”
Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, page 271, Zondervan 1999:
“Numbered days need not be solar. Neither is there a rule of Hebrew language demanding that all numbered
days in a series refer to twenty-four-hour days. Even if there were no exceptions in the Old Testament, it
would not mean that “day” in Genesis 1 could not refer to more than one twenty-four-hour period. But there
is another example in the Old Testament. Hosea 6:1-2 . . . . . . Clearly the prophet is not speaking of solar
“days” but of longer periods in the future. Yet he numbers the days in series.”
Now, given MacArthur’s statement and the above two quotes, a reader of the Bible is faced with contradictory
not
claims by established authorities. How is this to be resolved? My view is that MacArthur’s statement is
supported by the underlying Hebrew text, and that the Hebrew text does support Archer and Geisler. My
analysis will first consider the numbering of the singular word “yom” from the numbers two (second)
through six (sixth).
1. READING GENESIS ONE: Comparing Biblical Hebrew with English Translation ISBN 0-9728782-0-3 The book is
available from Amazon.com The Table of Contents is available for viewing online at the website creationingenesis.com

A review of the Hebrew text of the Bible finds:
(1) Each of the Hebrew numberings expressed by “yom” + ordinal number used in Genesis 1:8, Genesis 1:13,
Genesis 1:23, and Genesis 1:31 ( i.e., five of the six creative times) appear only one time in
Genesis 1:19,
the Bible.
in other verses, the reader almost always finds that the number is prefixed by
(2) Where “yom” is numbered
the Hebrew letter “heh” the prefix meaning “the.” This is illustrated by Archer’s harison “the first”
and hasseni “the second.” In these words, the Hebrew letter is pronounced with a following “a”
vowel leading to ha + rison and ha + sseni , where the ha represents the phonetic pronunciation of the
Hebrew prefix and the following vowel.
(3) In other verses where “yom” is numbered, the reader almost always finds one of the following:
a. “In yom,” i.e., “yom” prefixed by the letter “beth,” a preposition meaning “in” or “on.”
b. “And in yom,” i.e., “in yom” with the added prefix “waw” meaning “and.”
c. Or, infrequently, “yom” with a different preceding prefix or preposition. These may be
the attached prefixes meaning “to,” “and,” or the unattached preposition meaning “until.”
almost every case, both “yom” and the number are prefixed. As a consequence, the numberings in
Note: In
1:8, Genesis 1:13, Genesis 1:19, and Genesis 1:23.
Hebrew differ significantly from the pattern found in Genesis
A computer search of the possible Hebrew wordings that could number “yom,” using “second” gave the results
listed below. As listed, the entire Hebrew word with attached prefixes is translated enclosed in quotation marks and
represents successive words:
————— one verse, Genesis 1:8
“yom” “second”
“in yom” “the second” ——— 8 times [ This is Archer’s hayyom hasseni.]
“and in yom” “the second” — 3 times
second day, I found 15 verses. Two of the 15 verses do not have the Hebrew
Searching the KJV Old Testament for
word “yom”; the English word day appears in italics. Another verse, 1 Samuel 20:34, has an intervening word and
reads “in yom” “of the month” “the second.”
When the search was extended to include numbering by two through six, the Hebrew words appear 56 times as
described by both 2) and 3) above. 1 Chronicles 26:17 is an exception which uses “to yom” “four.” Genesis 1:31
an exception reading “yom” “the sixth,” a combination which appears only in this verse. Of the six creative
is
1:31 prefixes the number; the word “yom” remains unprefixed.
times only Genesis
The above pattern of prefixing both the ordinal number and the word “yom” also, almost always, describes the
numbering of “yom” by “the seventh,” (44 times) and “the eighth” (17 times). The exceptions being “and yom”
“the seventh” which appears two times, and “yom” “the seventh” which appears one time in Genesis 2:3. The
Hebrew pattern is not always visible in English translation. For example, the Hebrew of Exodus 20:11 reads
some translations read “the seventh day” omitting the prefix “on.” The NAS, NIV,
“on yom” “the seventh,” but
and many recent translations now more correctly translate “and rested” “on the seventh day.”
By consulting the Hebrew text of the Bible it can be established that:
repeated pattern of t he numbering of the creative times in Genesis One is unique. Each of the
A. The
Hebrew numberings expressed by “yom” + number used in Genesis 1:8, Genesis 1:13, Genesis 1:19,
Genesis 1:23, and Genesis 1:31, appear only one time in the Bible.
the numbering of the “yom” in other verses of the Bible almost always
B. The pattern of
includes both of procedures (2) and (3) above for numbers two through six.
These results confirm Geisler’s: “Neither is there a rule of Hebrew language demanding that all
numbered days in a series refer to twenty-four-hour days.”
of the definite article “the” prefixing the Hebrew word “yom,”
These results and the uniform absence
confirms the basis of Archer’s:
“. . . none of the six creative days bears a definite article in the Hebrew text;
the translations “the first day,” “ the second day,” etc., are in error.”

Returning to the Bible reader. How are the different claims to be resolved? Clearly the underlying Hebrew must
precedent. Why the confusion about the numbering? Consider Genesis 22:4 as an example; both “yom”
take
“third” are prefixed in the Hebrew.
and
Heb
Genesis 22:4 “in yom” “the third” . . .
NIV
Genesis 22:4 On the “third” “day” Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.
The reader of the Hebrew text sees the first two words as “in yom” “the third” . . . .
The reader of the English translation sees two words, “third” “day,” not “in yom” “the third.”
This difference in perception also occurs for Genesis 1:13:
Heb
Genesis 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning — “yom” “third.”
NIV
Genesis 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning— the “third” “day.”
The Hebrew reader knows that the “in yom” “the third” of Genesis 22:4
differs from the Hebrew “yom” “third” of Genesis 1:13.

A person reasoning on the basis of English translations can (erroneously) conclude that the numbering third day
of Genesis 22:4 is equivalent to the “yom” “third” of Genesis 1:13 because:
NIV
Genesis 1:13 is “third” in the Hebrew,
1) The English reader does not know that “the third” of the
NIV
and does not know that the “the” in Genesis 1:13 is not in the Hebrew text.
on” with “day” as one word, “on day.”
2) The English reader does not associate “
Conclusion: What does all the foregoing mean for understanding Genesis 1?
1) The uniqueness of the Hebrew numbering of the creative “yom” actually supports the view that the
ordinary (24-hour) days.
creative “yom” are not
2) The numbering of the creative “yom” does not exclude the “extended period” or “age” meaning of
Hebrew word “yom” when referring to the six creative times. The unique numbering of the
the
creative times adds support for the “extended period” or “age” meaning.
are no other applicable examples of the numbering of a sequence that is equivalent to the
3) There
numbering of the creative “yom.” Assertions which attempt to interpret numberings which read
“yom” “second” using numberings which read “in yom” “the second” are flawed.
To many readers of
English translation, the difference in meaning between “a second day” and “the second day”
will not be apparent. Because of this, the Hebrew phrases are better translated another way.
This author prefers translating “a second time,” “a third time,” etc., which avoids the confusing use of the English
word “day” with two different meanings in Genesis 1:1-31. The translations “the second day,” “ the third day,” etc.,
conceal the fact that the Hebrew does not use the ordinal numbering used in other verses when referring to the
activities of an ordinary daytime. Some recent translations, such as the NAS, now translate “a second day,”
“a third day,” etc., for Genesis 1:8, Genesis 1:13, Genesis 1:19, and Genesis 1:23.
As was already noted, the Hebrew of Genesis 1:5 reads “yom” “one,” and does not use the Hebrew word rison
ehad (one) is used as an ordinal, it appears as haehad including the prefix
meaning first. In other verses, when
ha meaning “the.” Genesis 2:11 is an example of this use. The absence of the prefix ha in Genesis 1:5 shows that
the ehad should be translated “one” and not “first.”
I hope this provides some useful information and clarification.
Rodney Whitefield 6/12/2006

[CoreIssue]

Hi MHz,

The generations of Genesis 2 are after the 6 days of creation. So that is a false foundation for the rest of that particular argument.

The issue of assigning time to the existence of Man is whole other time discussion. Just as the DOTL is whole othe time discussion.

On each of the 6 days of Creation in Genesis 1 this phrase is stated:

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Thus, per the definition of day, in the Hebrew, the period of time is defined. One morning and one evening in the Hebrew defines a solar day.

Here are the meanings of the key words, nailing down the meaning to a solar day, not a long period of time
Strong's Number: 06153 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=6153&version=kjv) Original WordWord Originbr[from (06150 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=6150&version=kjv))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06153&version=kjv#Legend) Entry`erebTWOT - 1689aPhonetic SpellingParts of Speecheh'-reb http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=6153h) Noun Masculine Definition
evening, night, sunset
evening, sunset
night
Strong's Number: 01242 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=1242&version=kjv) Original WordWord Originrqbfrom (01239 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=1239&version=kjv))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=01242&version=kjv#Legend) EntryBoqerTWOT - 274cPhonetic SpellingParts of Speechbo'-ker http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=1242h) Noun Masculine Definition
morning, break of day
morning
of end of night
of coming of daylight
of coming of sunrise
of beginning of day
of bright joy after night of distress (fig.)
morrow, next day, next morning
Strong's Number: 03117 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/browse.cgi?number=3117&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origin~wyfrom an unused root meaning to be hotTransliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03117&version=kjv#Legend) EntryYowmTWOT - 852Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechyome http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3117h) Noun Masculine Definition
day, time, year
day (as opposed to night)
day (24 hour period)
as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
as a division of time 1b
a working day, a day's journey
days, lifetime (pl.)
time, period (general)
year
temporal references
today
yesterday
tomorrow
As with many other issues, the passages define themselve pin point. But you neglect to take all the facts stated into consideration.

The 7th day contains no such morning and evening statement.

[MHz]

Hi Core,

The generations of Genesis 2 are after the 6 days of creation. So that is a false foundation for the rest of that particular argument.
Really, so God is in error when He states this?
Ge:2:5:
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth,
and every herb of the field before it grew:
for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,
and there was not a man to till the ground.

Would you also say that Eve was not alive by the end of the 6th day? That would make God in error of this verse also;
Ge:2:1:
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished,
and all the host of them.

If it is one period of 24 hours then you also have God being in error in this verse;
Ge:2:17:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
thou shalt not eat of it:
for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God gives us the number of years Adam lived after being put out of the Garden, 930 years.

We both know God, and therefore all Scripture, is not in error. It is only a matter of our understanding that is subject to error.

God divided creation into 6 days as the model for the observation of a Sabbath, a day of rest after 6 days of work.

Now I have no problem with God having the power to do all the creation in a very short time as there are times that are yet to be that will show that kind of power will be shown. From our current understanding of time Earth should last until our sun explodes, about the same time in the future as it has already been there, the Heavens an even much longer period of time. Yet Scripture tells us these two things will cease to end at the end of Satan's little season, at least the Earth would seem to experience the same fate that would occur if the sun did explode. Either that time does not arrive for billions of years or God does something that would defy what we know of science. Does what we see as the Heavens also cease or is the third Heaven so far away we just can't see them any longer. Once our current Earth and Heavens vanish they are said to exist again, this time to never fade away.

Isa:51:6:
Lift up your eyes to the heavens,
and look upon the earth beneath:
for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke,
and the earth shall wax old like a garment,
and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner:
but my salvation shall be for ever,
and my righteousness shall not be abolished.


The issue of assigning time to the existence of Man is whole other time discussion. Just as the DOTL is whole othe time discussion.
It isn't the amount of time man has existed, it is the amount of time it took for the 6 days of creation for both the Heavens and the Earth to be completed from start to finish.
Almost ironic that on both of these issues we use opposite terms to define the length of a day. You see the creation taking 144 hours total yet the 'one day' that is said to be TDOTL is anything but one day and any reference to what happens on 'that day' is well beyond a single 24 hour period.

On each of the 6 days of Creation in Genesis 1 this phrase is stated:

Thus, per the definition of day, in the Hebrew, the period of time is defined. One morning and one evening in the Hebrew defines a solar day.
I assume God came back to the Garden after His day of rest, that would mean that Satan tempted Eve within 24 hours of God starting His day of rest.

Here are the meanings of the key words, nailing down the meaning to a solar day, not a long period of time
Did you even read that article the link referenced? It would appear not.
While I usually agree with most of the definations that men have come (like Strong's)up with for most words, in this instance there is more than a possibility that this is in error. For one thing the 6 days of creation would more properly be a 'working day', God worked for 6 days and then rested;
Ge:2:2:
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;
and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Ge:2:3:
And God blessed the seventh day,
and sanctified it:
because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.



As with many other issues, the passages define themselve pin point. But you neglect to take all the facts stated into consideration.
You are relying on how man has defined what a 'day' means in terms of God in relation to Earth time.
Judgment Day takes place where, in Heaven, there is no basis for telling how long that process will take. Each person there that will be judged has all his works examined in detail, there are going to be many more people go through this than have lived for the thousand years;
Isa:54:1:
Sing,
O barren,
thou that didst not bear;
break forth into singing,
and cry aloud,
thou that didst not travail with child:
for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife,
saith the LORD.

For this to occur in total in 24 hours there are either not going to be very many, if words are spoken at the rate they are today, or the words would occur so fast it would be meaningless to us today as being able to be understood. I don't think there will be one who goes through this that will not understand each and every word.

If Earth has a period of time called a day then there is also a day in Heaven. Several days of creation passed before Earth was given what exists as how we are to observe as the passage of time. Are you going to say that this is also how time is when speaking of the third Heaven, that is where the throne of God is since what we observe as Heaven will pass away just as our Earth will pass away.

2Co:12:2:
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago,
(whether in the body,
I cannot tell;
or whether out of the body,
I cannot tell:
God knoweth;)
such an one caught up to the third heaven.




The 7th day contains no such morning and evening statement.
It would seem that this day does have an end and God does create after this day is ended;
Psalms:51:10:
Create in me a clean heart,
O God;
and renew a right spirit within me.

Isa:65:17:
For,
behold,
I create new heavens and a new earth:
and the former shall not be remembered,
nor come into mind.

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=16538#post16538)
The generations of Genesis 2 are after the 6 days of creation. So that is a false foundation for the rest of that particular argument.

Really, so God is in error when He states this?
Ge:2:5:
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth,
and every herb of the field before it grew:
for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,
and there was not a man to till the ground.

You made the error by deleting verses 4 & 6. It says God watered the earth by mist before he brought rain upon the earth. Nothing more.
Would you also say that Eve was not alive by the end of the 6th day? That would make God in error of this verse also;
Ge:2:1:
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished,
and all the host of them.

Don't have a clue where you even got that idea from. 6 solar days. Does not include Gen 1:1&2 or any event stated as occuring on the 7th day or later.
If it is one period of 24 hours then you also have God being in error in this verse;
Ge:2:17:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
thou shalt not eat of it:
for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Not part of the 6 days.
God gives us the number of years Adam lived after being put out of the Garden, 930 years.
Moot issue concerning the 6 days.
We both know God, and therefore all Scripture, is not in error. It is only a matter of our understanding that is subject to error.
Yep, and you are getting it very wrong.
God divided creation into 6 days as the model for the observation of a Sabbath, a day of rest after 6 days of work.
After 6 solar days.
Now I have no problem with God having the power to do all the creation in a very short time as there are times that are yet to be that will show that kind of power will be shown. From our current understanding of time Earth should last until our sun explodes, about the same time in the future as it has already been there, the Heavens an even much longer period of time. Yet Scripture tells us these two things will cease to end at the end of Satan's little season, at least the Earth would seem to experience the same fate that would occur if the sun did explode. Either that time does not arrive for billions of years or God does something that would defy what we know of science. Does what we see as the Heavens also cease or is the third Heaven so far away we just can't see them any longer. Once our current Earth and Heavens vanish they are said to exist again, this time to never fade away.
And back into the original form of Gen 1:1. There most assuredly is oceans and stuff after verse 2, when the earth was shattered. Read the Pre-Adamic Thread for information. Don't just throw things out here about what is contained there.
Isa:51:6:
Lift up your eyes to the heavens,
and look upon the earth beneath:
for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke,
and the earth shall wax old like a garment,
and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner:
but my salvation shall be for ever,
and my righteousness shall not be abolished.
Which has nothing to do with Genesis 1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=16538#post16538)
The issue of assigning time to the existence of Man is whole other time discussion. Just as the DOTL is whole othe time discussion.

It isn't the amount of time man has existed, it is the amount of time it took for the 6 days of creation for both the Heavens and the Earth to be completed from start to finish.


False. The 6 days begin in verse 3, not verse 1.
Almost ironic that on both of these issues we use opposite terms to define the length of a day. You see the creation taking 144 hours total yet the 'one day' that is said to be TDOTL is anything but one day and any reference to what happens on 'that day' is well beyond a single 24 hour period.
I use the proper definition of day for the context given. Two issues, two time contexts and thus two different portions of the meaning of day. Day does NOT have one singular meaning.
Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=16538#post16538)
On each of the 6 days of Creation in Genesis 1 this phrase is stated:

Thus, per the definition of day, in the Hebrew, the period of time is defined. One morning and one evening in the Hebrew defines a solar day.

I assume God came back to the Garden after His day of rest, that would mean that Satan tempted Eve within 24 hours of God starting His day of rest.


Look up the definition of rest in the Hebrew. It means to cease one activity. It does not mean to cease all activity.

To say it demands God did nothing is a false demand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=16538#post16538)
Here are the meanings of the key words, nailing down the meaning to a solar day, not a long period of time

Did you even read that article the link referenced? It would appear not.


Yep. I read it.

Notice they all focus on yom for their arguments? Neglecting morning and evening?

That is the only way the can begin to argue for long periods of time. Meaning avoid the self declaration, within the verses, as to what amount if time is stated.

Notice they state yom can be a long period of time? But they neglect to state yom can also be a mere portion of a solar day.

No. When one refuses to deal with the whole of the words in a passage, there is a reason. As in it defeats their arguments.

They also fall prey to the error of including verses 1 & 2 as the first day. Read the Pre-Adamic thread for why that cannot be true.

They are trying to conform Genesis to scientific theory while giving no room for Pre-Adamic.

Pre-Adamic violates nothing in the Bible. It preserves ex-nilo creation, which these guys do not.

They are embracing evolution, which the Bible denies.

Each kind is created and reproduces its own kind. Clearly stated and a lie if evolution is true.
While I usually agree with most of the definations that men have come (like Strong's)up with for most words, in this instance there is more than a possibility that this is in error. For one thing the 6 days of creation would more properly be a 'working day', God worked for 6 days and then rested;
Ge:2:2:
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;
and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Ge:2:3:
And God blessed the seventh day,
and sanctified it:
because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Yep. The Sabbath is a 24 hour day, within the week. Not a 1,000 years or any such thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=16538#post16538)
As with many other issues, the passages define themselve pin point. But you neglect to take all the facts stated into consideration.

You are relying on how man has defined what a 'day' means in terms of God in relation to Earth time.


You are avoiding morning and evening, which sets the amount of time as a solar day.
Judgment Day...
We are talking about Creation here. Please stay on topic and stop trying to equate other issues as demanding the same length of time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreIssue http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=16538#post16538)
The 7th day contains no such morning and evening statement.

It would seem that this day does have an end and God does create after this day is ended;


But it is not stated.
Psalms:51:10:
Create in me a clean heart,
O God;
and renew a right spirit within me.

Off topic.
Isa:65:17:
For,
behold,
I create new heavens and a new earth:
and the former shall not be remembered,
nor come into mind.
Off topic.

[MHz]

Hi Core;


The generations of Genesis 2 are after the 6 days of creation. So that is a false foundation for the rest of that particular argument.
No Core, it is God giving more information about those 6 days.

Really, so God is in error when He states this?
Ge:2:5:
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth,
and every herb of the field before it grew:
for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,
and there was not a man to till the ground.

You made the error by deleting verses 4 & 6. It says God watered the earth by mist before he brought rain upon the earth. Nothing more.
The mist stayed until the flood, that is why the rainbow had never been seem before then.


Would you also say that Eve was not alive by the end of the 6th day? That would make God in error of this verse also;
Ge:2:1:
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished,
and all the host of them.

Don't have a clue where you even got that idea from. 6 solar days. Does not include Gen 1:1&2 or any event stated as occuring on the 7th day or later.
Read the first chapter of the Bible, it took 6 full days (of God's time) to complete the creation of all things that existed in both Heaven and Earth, just as Scripture says;
Ge:1:31:
And God saw every thing that he had made,
and,
behold,
it was very good.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

By the end of the first day the Earth had form, and there was both light and darkness upon the Earth, a barren and lifeless rock.

If it is one period of 24 hours then you also have God being in error in this verse;
Ge:2:17:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
thou shalt not eat of it:
for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Not part of the 6 days.
Quote:
God gives us the number of years Adam lived after being put out of the Garden, 930 years.

Moot issue concerning the 6 days.
Not moot when it either happened on a solar day or it didn't, and it didn't it was more than 900 years later.

We both know God, and therefore all Scripture, is not in error. It is only a matter of our understanding that is subject to error.

Yep, and you are getting it very wrong.
Since you say ch. 2 is after the 6 days you have Adam being created twice, you should have stopped right there.
Quote:
God divided creation into 6 days as the model for the observation of a Sabbath, a day of rest after 6 days of work.
After 6 solar days.

Now I have no problem with God having the power to do all the creation in a very short time as there are times that are yet to be that will show that kind of power will be shown. From our current understanding of time Earth should last until our sun explodes, about the same time in the future as it has already been there, the Heavens an even much longer period of time. Yet Scripture tells us these two things will cease to end at the end of Satan's little season, at least the Earth would seem to experience the same fate that would occur if the sun did explode. Either that time does not arrive for billions of years or God does something that would defy what we know of science. Does what we see as the Heavens also cease or is the third Heaven so far away we just can't see them any longer. Once our current Earth and Heavens vanish they are said to exist again, this time to never fade away.

And back into the original form of Gen 1:1. There most assuredly is oceans and stuff after verse 2, when the earth was shattered. Read the Pre-Adamic Thread for information. Don't just throw things out here about what is contained there.
Well Scripture certainly says that is wrong, those things came into being after that first day.

Isa:51:6:
Lift up your eyes to the heavens,
and look upon the earth beneath:
for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke,
and the earth shall wax old like a garment,
and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner:
but my salvation shall be for ever,
and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Which has nothing to do with Genesis 1.
True.



I use the proper definition of day for the context given. Two issues, two time contexts and thus two different portions of the meaning of day. Day does NOT have one singular meaning.
Think it strange that time is only flexable when you say so, strange and a whole lot more.
Quote:
Quote:


Look up the definition of rest in the Hebrew. It means to cease one activity. It does not mean to cease all activity.

To say it demands God did nothing is a false demand.
God didn't create anything after the end of the 6th day.
Quote:
Quote:


Here are the meanings of the key words, nailing down the meaning to a solar day, not a long period of time
From the POV of being on Earth, God was not on earth before the earth was formed.



Notice they all focus on yom for their arguments? Neglecting morning and evening?
Then you didn't read it very carefully.

From post #19,
"The Hebrew
says, “And the evening took place, and the morning took place, day one” (1:5). Hebrew expresses “the first
day” by hayyom harison, but this text says simply yom ehad (day one). "

"NIV
Genesis 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning— the “third” “day.”
The Hebrew reader knows that the “in yom” “the third” of Genesis 22:4
differs from the Hebrew “yom” “third” of Genesis 1:13."



That is the only way the can begin to argue for long periods of time. Meaning avoid the self declaration, within the verses, as to what amount if time is stated.

Notice they state yom can be a long period of time? But they neglect to state yom can also be a mere portion of a solar day.

If the topic was about Christ's time in the grave it would have been covered.

No. When one refuses to deal with the whole of the words in a passage, there is a reason. As in it defeats their arguments.
Only in your mind.

They also fall prey to the error of including verses 1 & 2 as the first day. Read the Pre-Adamic thread for why that cannot be true.
There was a reason I didn't post my first responce to you, your article is not worth considering as being remotely possible and therfore not in need of any comment.

They are trying to conform Genesis to scientific theory while giving no room for Pre-Adamic.
Good for them.

Pre-Adamic violates nothing in the Bible. It preserves ex-nilo creation, which these guys do not.
I have no problem letting you going on believeing every